you have some
aggressive
people, but they are not aggressive because they are Jewish .
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
He, too, is low on all scales.
His whole philosophy is positivistic, with a strong interest in semantics, though he does not "think they should make a panacea out of semantics.
" His general outlook on minority problems is summarized by his statement on the Japanese:
"If the Germans were changed in one generation by the Nazis, then the Japanese can be changed in a democratic way in one or two generations. Anybody can be- come anything under the proper conditions. "
Consequently, when discussing anti-Semitism, he chooses as an explanation a historical element, the maliciously superimposed Jewish names. The arbi- trariness of the selection of this specific factor can probably be accounted for by the interviewee's semanticist hobby:
"Anti-Semitism is a little different. Semites are not so easily identified. I guess their name is about the main thing. For instance, from your name I guess you're Jewish though I wouldn't know to look at you. Are you? " (Yes. ) (Subject is quite open about these things. The only sign of inhibition was that it was hard for him to use the word "Jew" as he preferred the word "Semite" at first, but later he used the word "Jew" also. )
This subject's readiness to discuss the interviewer's Jewishness is significant. To him, the word Jew is not a magic word, nor is being Jewish a disgrace: thus he does not feel inhibited about mentioning it in relation to the person with whom he is talking. It is hard to imagine that a high scorer would casu- ally discuss the origins of an interviewer except on occasions when he feels on the defensive and wants to hurt the other fellow: "You are a Jew yourself, aren't you? "
The rationality of the unprejudiced subjects expresses itself, above all, in their rejection of anti-minority stereotypes. Frequently, this rejection is of a conscious, articulate nature: they take the concept of individuality seriously. We refer again to Mgzo. His utterance shows a definite sense of proportion even in his rejection of stereotypy: he does not deny the existence of physical racial characteristics, but regards them as nonessential:
"Well, I wouldn't be tricked into making a statement about any people as a
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
group. The Japanese I've known I've liked very well. I know there are some Japa- nese who aren't so nice. . . . W e had a Japanese gir1stand up with us at the altar and ' a Chinese girl too . . . in 1942 when there was some pretty tense feeling. (Do you feel that any racial group has certain distinguishing characteristics? ) No, not at all. Of course you have biological characteristics, the height of the bridge of the nose or pigmentation. "
A similar line is followed in the Los Angeles interview 5030, of a 33-year-old Stanford graduate who served for four years in the navy, finally becoming a Lieutenant Commander. His scores on all scales are low. He is judged by the interviewer to be an extremely astute, successful individual:
"The Negroes, Jews, and all minority groups are having a very difficult time. I think many people dislike them because of their physical characteristics. They are really in a very bad spot. Such things as the FEPC help a lot and I favor both state and national laws concerning this issue. So many people are not willing to admit that many Negroes are intelligent, superior, and capable individuals. Their environ- ment has held them back as a race. I have had both good and bad experiences with members of these groups but have never considered the people as belonging to a certain race or religion. I always take them for what they are worth as individuals. Yesterday I had a nice experience. There is a girl in one of my classes who is part Negro. She is a very superior and capable individual and I am sure the most intelli- gent member of the class. I have often thought I would like to visit with her but a suitable opportunity has never presented itself. Yesterday I, after much hesitation and fumbling, invited her to have a cup of coffee with me. Her acceptance was much more gracious than my invitation and we had a nice visit. I think the reason for my hesitation was simply a fear of what other people might think. I once had a Jewish roommate and he was the best roommate I have ever had. "
An extreme example of fully conscious anti-stereotypy is 5046, an execu- tive secretary in the movie industry, in her late thirties, actively engaged in the labor movement. Her questionnaire scores are low for all scales. If some of her formulations suggest a "ticket low,"2 it should be kept in mind that her rejection of stereotypy even prevents her from building up automatically a pro-Jewish stereotype. She is no "Jew lover," but seems truly to appraise people as individuals. As a matter of fact, she has just severed a relationship with a Jewish man:
When the interviewer began questioning subject on the Jewish problem, it be- came apparent immediately that she "knew all the answers. " She stated: "Yes, there is a problem . . . but I don't think we should call it a Jewish problem; it really is a Christian problem . . . question of educating the Gentiles who practice anti- Semitism. " When given the check list, she laughed and said: "Of course, one can't generalize . . . these are the stereotypes used by the anti-Semites to blame the Jews for certain faults . . . I don't think one should label any group like this . . . it is dangerous, especially in regard to the Jews, because one has to evaluate the indi- vidual on his or her own merits. " None of the other questions brought out even a trace of anti-Semitism, and throughout, her answers indicated a consistent, almost
2 See the "rigid low scorer" in Chapter XIX.
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
militant stand against anti-Semitism. She feels that anti-Semitism is one of the most dangerous trends in this country and feels that the only solution must be sought through widespread education along liberal lines and through extensive intermar- riage. She feels rather optimistic about the process of assimilation, although she is quite alarmed about the increase of anti-Semitism during recent years. Hitler's race theory and persecution of the Jews should be combatted on every front, in what- ever form it may appear. She stated: "I have also known some Jewish people whom I decidedly did not like, and some of them were quite aggressive, but I would never generalize that therefore 'all Jews' were aggressive . . . if only we could make people see that some people are aggressive for certain reasons, usually because of insecurity, and Jews are not aggressive because they are Jews. "
As pointed out in great detail in the chapters on the personality aspects of the interview material, the low scorers' rationality, their rejection of projec- tive imagery and automatized judgment, does not involve as a rule emotional coldness and detachment. Although they are more rational than the "highs" in so far as their judgment seems to be less determined by repressed uncon- scious factors, they are simultaneously less blocked in positive cathexes and in the expression of them. This refers not only to their general psychological make-up but also to their specific minority attitudes. The prejudiced person discusses the Jews as an "object" while he actually hates; the unprejudiced person displays sympathy even when he pretends simply to judge objec- tively. The link between this sympathy and rationality is the idea of justice, which has come to work, in certain people, spontaneously, almost as if it were instinctual. To the low scorer, racial discrimination violates the basic principle of the equality of all men. In the name of human rights he tends to identify himself with those who are discriminated against and who thus appeal to his own spontaneous feeling of solidarity with the oppressed.
Here are a few examples of this specific configuration. M 113, a "religious low scorer" whose F scale shows higher trends and whose PEC scale was still higher:
(Minority problem? ) "In a speech the other day in Public Speaking I said that democracy is mainly respect for minority groups. " (Vague, little verbalized ideas. ) "They have gotten a dirty deal, as most minorities do. "
Similarly, in M320, a consistently low-scoring student of landscape archi- tecture, protest against unfairness works as a "rationalization" for emotional identification which otherwise might not be allowed to come into the open:
"I'm very much pro-Negro, myself. I think I'm in favor of almost any minority that's discriminated against unfairly. . . . (What about the Jewish problem? ) I don't see why it should be a problem at all. I think that in Europe the Jews should be allowed to live and have their businesses, etc. , the same as anyone else. "
Or the young woman F129, also low on all scales, a somewhat high-strung person who, according to the interviewer, is moved by any disturbing sub- ject-including race prejudice-to tears and flushes:
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
(And how do you feel about Jews? ) "vVhy, I don't feel any way about them except upset at the way they are treated. There are good and bad in all races but I am inclined to be even more tolerant about the shortcomings of people who are always persecuted and criticized. (Could you have married a Jew? ) Why of course, if I had fallen in love with one. (Why do you think Jews are persecuted? ) I don't know except some people have to hate. "
There are indications that the low scorers' affect-laden sense of justice is not a mere surface ideology, or a means of narcissistic gratification in one's own humanitarianism, but that it has a real basis within the personality and is only presented afterwards, as it were, in theoretical terms. The sympathy for the underdog leads towards action, towards attempts to correct in concrete, indi- vidual situations what is felt to be general unfairness. A pertinent case was 5030 (see p. 646). We give one further illustration: F126, who is low on E and PEC and only slightly higher on F. She is a good-looking young woman, "very articulate and whimsical, with much charm and humor. " She studies journalism and says that her real desire is to do "creative writing":
"I remember when I was in junior high, there was only one Jewish boy in our class. We were always having parties and affairs and he was left out. At first I didn't even understand why. He was a very nice boy, smart, and good-looking. But they left him out because he was a Jew. vVell, I made it my business to be his special friend, not only invited him to my parties, but paid particular attention to him. That was one time it was really good to be one of the leading kids. The others began to treat him the same way, and he was just one of the crowd from then on. I never have been able to stand to see anyone be mean to anyone else. The same at the shipyards. I always made it a point to get acquainted with Negroes and Jews. They talked frankly with me, too, and I certainly found out what some of their problems are. Whenever I could, I would bring it into a story, too. Not directly about race prejudice, but nice stories about Negroes for instance. People have so many wrong ideas. I sometimes think it is just hopeless. "
The general attitude of the low scorers towards the Jews profoundly affects their evaluation of so-called Jewish traits. It has been said above (pp. 612 ff. ) that high scorers perceive the Jew altogether differently: their psycho- logical make-up functions as a frame of reference even for their supposedly "immediate," everyday experiences. Something similar applies, in reverse, to the unprejudiced. Yet the diffuseness and inarticulateness of the objective "Jewish traits," complex as they are, is reflected by the low scorers' attitude no less than by the various projections of the high scorers. There is universal sympathy among the unprejudiced subjects, but no unanimity. Sometimes they try to explain Jewish traits; sometimes they simply deny their existence; sometimes they take an emphatically positive, admiring stand towards those traits.
The explanatory method is applied to the most widespread idea of a Jewish trait, that of clannishness, by M2o2, a 35-year-old construction engineer, with the lowest possible score on E, but with certain deviations from the usual
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
picture of the low scorer with regard to PEC and also to F-a person who, according to the interviewer, "is conservative but not fascist. "
In response to a question about how he would characterize the Jews, subject replied that they were a close-knit family with certain inborn characteristics like any other racial group. For instance, the Germans "must always be right," the English-here the interviewer interrupted, pointing out that she wished to know what he thought of the Jews. He replied that the Jews had not been accepted in a certain society and that this had led to their becoming a very close-knit family. The reason for this is that they have certain characteristics. On being asked to be more specific, his reply was they have a tendency to sharp dealing. Of course he doesn't blame them because he would probably do the same if he had the chance and if he were smart enough.
In this case, the wish to "explain," frequently an instrument for rationaliza- tions, seems to mediate between broad-mindedness on the one hand and power- ful anti-minority stereotypes, which are still there below the surface, on the other. As a matter of fact, the pro-Jewish apologies of the subject are fol- lowed by a rather unfriendly story about a supposed conspiracy among three Jewish bidders for a vast quantity of scrap-iron. The guess that the explanatory attitude may sometimes cover up ambivalence seems to be cor- roborated by Mpo, an assistant manager for an advertising agency, who scored low on all scales. Nevertheless, his theorizing presupposes the accept- ance of the stereotype of Jewish money-mindedness:
(Characteristic Jewish traits? ) "Well, I think it is true that Jews, as a group, are more concerned with money. . . . Perhaps because persecuted for so long. . . ? It's some small security in a money economy, that is, a money culture. Some security to be able to defend themselves with money. I also think they are better than average Gentiles at making money because forced to be usurers during the Middle Ages, etc. "
Subjects whose scores are at the lowest extreme often tend simply to deny the existence of any Jewish traits, sometimes with a violence that seems to be due more to the impact of their own conscience than to an objective appraisal of the minority members. Here "neurotic" traits, which are often found in extremely unprejudiced subjects, may easily enter the picture. The vehicle by which they try to argue away Jewish traits is insight into the mechanisms of projectivity and stereotypy, i. e. , into the subjective factors making for anti-Semitism.
Mz12, a "quiet, reserved, well-mannered sophomore of 18 years," whose scale scores are all low, simply subscribes to the "envy" theory:
(Jews? ) "Not an educational problem in this case. People just prejudiced. Want to keep them out of good positions, etc. People make up wild stories, like that the Jews have too much money, control the country, etc. ; it's just to keep them back. (Your contacts? ) No Negroes in my school. Jews were like anyone else. I'd never know they were Jewish if they hadn't told me," ?
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
5041 (whose scale scores are all low), a 59-year-old housewife who had studied to be a professional pianist, combines the denial of Jewish traits with reference to bygone ages and with the rejection of resentful generalizations:
"I think there is a Jewish problem-but I don't think that they are different . . . not that there is anything inherent in them that they should be set apart or treated differently. . . . There are historical reasons for their persecution . . . it is not their fault. Well, you can't apply any of these traits to the Jews as a group. Jews are not a race. . . . These terms might apply to some individuals, to Christians as well as Jews . . .
you have some aggressive people, but they are not aggressive because they are Jewish . . . it's usually something that the other person does not like . . . say they appear to be more intellectual and some succeed, outdoing others, this causes resentment, and then they are called aggressive. . . . "
An extreme of denial is achieved by the "easy-going" low scorer, M z2o6a, of the Maritime School Group, who "is a highly introspective person and shows much inhibition against rejecting another person or group, even on the basis of principles founded in reality. " His scores on all the scales are low:
(Most characteristic traits of Negroes? ) "Well, I don't think there is such a thing. They have the same traits the white men have. . . . I don't believe any nationality has any characteristics. . . . "
Sometimes the intense emotions behind the denial of Jewish traits find a somewhat irrational expression. F z2 5 (low on E and F, but high on PEC) is a student who would like to become a drama teacher and who finds "the movies very stereotyped. " Her indignation was stirred up by our own study.
"I was mad at some questions in your questionnaire, especially about the Jewish atmosphere. The Irish people and other national groups give an atmosphere to the place in which they live, but only the Jewish atmosphere is stamped as something bad. I don't find that the ways of living of the Jews are different at all. "
If the prejudiced subjects, for reasons of general conformity and in order to obtain "social confirmation," frequently stress that practically everybody is anti-Semitic, some low scorers go so far as not only to deny the existence of Jewish traits, but even of anti-Semitism. A case in point is the somewhat muddle-headed Mzz5, characterized as a typical conventional and conserva- tive fraternity man who, however, is within the low quartile on the F scale though in the middle quartile on E and in the high quartile on PEC:
(What about the Jewish problem? ) "There's not much persecution now in the United States. There shouldn't be any. The only reason for persecuting the Jew is that he is smarter than the next guy, as far as I can see. "
As to the appreciation of the specific qualities of Jews and of other minori- ties, we content ourselves with two examples which may throw light on significant areas. F128, a 17-year-old girl, is low on F and PEC but slightly
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 6p
higher on E. She is studying social work and is interested in child welfare, but not "in any kind of a career":
"I guess I have had a better education than many people. We have entertained Negroes in our home as long as I can remember. I have known all sorts of people- lots of them very eccentric people-in music and art groups. The first good friends I ever had were Jewish boys and girls. I don't know why some people hate Negroes and Jews. With Jewish people perhaps they are a little afraid, because lots of Jews are smarter than other people. "
The interesting element of this statement is contained in the word "eccen- tric. " It refers to what is "different," to what is branded as slightly abnormal by standards of conformity, but which expresses individualization, the? de- velopment of human traits which have not been preformed, as it were, by the social machinery of contemporary civilization. To this subject, the very "alienness" of minorities with respect to the rigid patterns of the highly organized mass society of today, represents the human, which she otherwise might feel to be lacking among the "right people. " The Jewish "failure" to become completely absorbed by the American cultural climate presents itself to this subject as a merit, as a triumph of autonomy and resistance ? against the leveling impact ofthe "melting pot. "
soso, a radio news commentator with progressive political affiliations, who is low on all three scales, denies the existence of Jewish traits but emphasizes a point rarely acknowledged: the patience of the minorities in the face of persecution. His praise of this attitude actually contains a critical element which may, by the implication of cowardice, be indicative of some hidden hostility. He blames the minorities for political reasons because they do not take a more energetic stand against American reaction:
He tries at all times to show that there are no so-called "Jewish traits," and that people such as described by Budd Schulberg in "What Makes Sammy Run" can and do occur quite as frequently among Gentiles. Then he usually points to a man like Rankin or Bilbo as an example of an obnoxious "Gentile. " "I admire both the Negro and the Jewish people for their great patience in swallowing discrimination. . . . if I were in their shoes, I would start a really militant fight against the oppressors. " He still feels that too many Jews and Negroes are too apathetic and rather let the other fellow do the fighting. . ? . he feels that had the Jews been more alert, Hitler might have been stopped, or at least prevented from perpetrating the extreme atrocities. Again and again he stated that all forms of discrimination can and must be wiped out by direct political action.
One last characteristic of the unprejudiced attitude toward minority ques- tions should be mentioned: the absence of fatalism. Not only do unprejudiced subjects, in the realm of their conscious convictions, appear to be set against ideas such as those of the inevitability of human badness or the perennial nature of any character traits, but on a deeper level, as suggested in Chapters XIV and XV,? they appear to be relatively free of destruc-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tive urges and punitive fantasies. They look at things in a historical and sociological way rather than hypostatizing the existent as something ulti- mately given. This point of view expresses itself also in their concept of the future relationships between majority and minority. soo8, low on E, in the middle quartile on F, and high on PEC, is a middle-aged woman who worked as a ghost writer, then as a literary agent, and is now employed as secretary to a radio show. In keeping with the low scorers' rejection of stereotypy, she sees the solution of the problem of anti-Semitism, however naively, in the establishment of personal contacts.
She holds nothing but good wishes for the intelligent immigrants and refugees who have come here recently, but feels that many of them have been undesirable. Concerning Negroes she reports that as a Republican she believes their position should be very much bettered, but says this is a difficult problem. Concerning Jews she says, "Before I went to work, I probably had a slight anti-Jewish feeling," but in several positions she has worked with and for Jews, and found them very charm- ing, intelligent, and interesting people. She thinks the racial problem most in need of solution is that of anti-Semitism, and feels that if more "anti-Semites would mingle ,with Jews the way I have" it could be avoided. She believes in the FEPC and thinks that socioeconomic discrimination should be outlawed. When it was pointed out that this is a more New Deal type of political notion, she simply said, "Well, it can't all be bad. "
This attitude, which stresses human spontaneity and freedom of action rather than rigid, authoritarian laws of nature, does not, however, lead toward "official optimism. " The unprejudiced subjects' sensitivity to the suffering of human beings, their compassion, makes them keenly aware of the dangers of racial persecution. It is the high scorer who would say, "It can't happen here," thus apparently detaching himself from the "objective" course of history with which he actually identifies himself; the low scorer knows that it could happen, but wants to do something about it.
sos8, low on all three scales, is a 29-year-old veteran of upper middle-class background whose main identification lies with "liberals" and "intellectuals. "
He is very concerned about the problem of minority groups in this country. "I do a lot of talking about it-hoping to reduce prejudice and to encourage tolerance. In fact, I feel so concerned about this thing I would almost be willing to set myself up in Pershing Square. I tried to do a little crusading in the Navy but without much success. " Subject is very pessimistic about the possibility of a solution to the "mi- nority problem" which seems to stem largely from his failure to modify the opinions of the people with whom he has argued. He feels that dislike of the Jews is increas- ing because he has heard more talk against them lately. "Of course that might be because I am exposed to it more lately, both while I was in the Navy and in my present job. " He does not feel that the Jews have too much influence in this country, nor does he believe that the Jews are a political force in America. He is certain that they did their part in the war effort. When asked about "basically Jewish traits," he was not able to respond since to him this term means practically nothing. "Jews are all so different from each other that we cannot speak of there being something 'basically Jewish' about them. "
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
]. CONCLUSION
It has often been said that anti-Semitism works as the spearhead of anti- democratic forces. The phrase sounds a bit hackneyed and apologetic: the minority most immediately threatened seems to make an all-too-eager attempt to enlist the support of the majority by claiming that it is the latter's interest and not their own which really finds itself in jeopardy today. Looking back, however, at the material surveyed in this, and other, chapters, it has to be recognized that a link between anti-Semitism and antidemocratic feeling exists. True, those who wish to exterminate the Jews do not, as is sometimes claimed, wish to exterminate afterwards the Irish or the Protestants. But the limitation of human rights which is consummated in their idea of a special treatment of the Jews, not only logically implies the ultimate abolition of the democratic form of government and, hence, of the legal protection of the individual, but it is frequently associated quite consciously, by high-scoring interviewees, with overt antidemocratic ideas. W e conclude this chapter with two examples of what appear to be the inescapable antidemocratic conse- quences of anti-Semitism. Mzo6, a man high on theE, F, and PEC scales, still pretends to be democratic; but it is not difficult to infer what is in the back of his mind:
"Hitler's plan-well, Hitler carried things just a little too far. There was some justification-some are bad, but not all. But Hitler went on the idea that a rotten apple in the barrel will spoil all the rest of them. " He doesn't approve of ruthless persecution. "If Hitler had handled the Jews as a minority group, had segregated them and set certain standards for them to live by, there would be less trouble for Hitler now. (Same problem in this country now? ) Same problem, but it's handled much better because we're a democratic country. "
While the suggestion that a minority be segregated is incompatible with the basic concepts of the same "democratic country" of which the subject pro- fesses to be proud, the metaphor of the rotten apple in the barrel conjures up the imagery of "evil germs" which is associated with appalling regularity with the dream of an effective germicide.
Perversion of a so-called democrat is manifested in 50zg, another man whose scale scores are all high. He is a 2o-year-old laborer, characterized above all, by his blind, authoritarian acceptance of his humble position in life. At the same time, he "dislikes timid people" and has "great admiration for real leaders":
Respondent believes that the "laws of democracy should favor white, Gentile people," yet he "would not openly persecute Jews in the way the Hitler program treated them. "
The reservation of the second sentence is disavowed by the momentum of the convictions expressed in the first one.
? CHAPTER XVII
POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN THE INTERVIEW MATERIAL T. W. Adorno
A. INTRODUCTION
The questionnaire findings on political and economic ideology have been analyzed in Chapter V. It is now our task to study the interview material referring to the same topics. The purpose is, first of all, to concretize our insight into these ideologies. If we investigated, in Chapter V, into the re- sponses of our subjects to a number of set, standardized political and eco- nomic ideas and slogans with which they are daily confronted, we shall now try to form a picture of "what they really think"-with the qualification that we shall also have to find out whether we are entitled to expect autonomous and spontaneous opinions from the majority of them. It is obvious that the answer to such problems, unless they should be made the very center of research, can be given only in a less rigorous way than was the case with the quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses, and that the results are of a more tentative nature. Their convincing power lies more in the con- sistency of specific interpretations with facts previously established than in any indisputable "proof" that one or the other of the ideological mechanisms under review prevail within a majority of subjects or within certain groups.
Again, our interpretations of ideology will go below the realm of sur- face opinion, and will be related to the psychological results of our study. It is not our aim merely to add some padding to our figures. As stated in? the Introductory Remarks to this part, we would rather gain insight into the links between ideological opinions and psychological determinants. We do not pretend that psychology is the cause and ideology the effect. But we try to interrelate both as intimately as possible, guided by the assumption that ideological irrationalities just as other irrationalities of overt human behavior
are concomitant with unconscious psychological conflicts. We combed through the interview material with particular attention to such irrationali-
654
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 655
ties and to statements revealing something about the dynamics of personality. The establishment of plausible configurations involving both dynamic moti- vation and ideological rationalization seems to us the foremost means of achieving that consistency on which the evidence of the discussions to follow largely depends. The data discussed so far permit at least the assumption that personality could be regarded as one determinant of ideology.
Yet it is just the area with which we are now concerned that most strongly forbids any simple reduction to terms of personality. Our construct of the~! "potentially fascist character" was largely based on the division between high and low scorers. Whereas this division retains its value for numerous topics of political and economic ideology and can be substantiated, on a deeper level, probably for all ideological issues, there appears to be at work another determinant which, in numerous issues, blurs the distinction between high and low scorers and refuses to be stated unequivocally in terms of personality. This determinant may be called our general cultural climate, and particularly the ideological influence upon the people of most media for moulding public opinion. If our cultural climate has been standardized under the impact o f social control and technological concentration to an extent never known before, we may expect that the thinking habits of individuals reflect this standardization as well as the dynamics of their own personalities. These personalities may, indeed, be the product of this very same standardization to a much higher degree than a naive observer is led to believe. In other words, we have to expect a kind of ideological "over-all pattern" in our inter- viewees which, though by no means indifferent to the dichotomy of high and low scorers, transcends its boundaries. Our data afford ample evidence that such an ideological over-all pattern exists in fact.
It is a major question for this chapter whether this over-all ideological pattern, perhaps even more than the specific susceptibility of our high scorers to fascist propaganda, does not entail the danger of a large-scale following of antidemocratic movements if they should get under way with powerful support.
The importance of this diagnosis, if it should be corroborated sufficientiy by our data, is self-evident, its most immediate implication being that the fight against such a general potential cannot be carried through only educa- tionally on a purely psychological level, but that it requires at the same time decisive changes of that cultural climate which makes for the over-all pat- tern. Methodologically, the importance of this aspect of our study lies in the fact that it relativizes, somewhat, the distinction between high vs. low scorers; this distinction, if taken as absolute, may easily lead to a "psychologizing" bias that would neglect the objective, supra-individual social forces operating in our society.
The introduction of the concept of an over-all pattern just in this ideolog-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ical area may appear paradoxical at first glance. Since most political and economic issues are overt and relatively simple with reference to the blunt division between progressivism and reactionism, one should expect the dif- ference to be particularly marked here. This, however, is not borne out by the facts. It is hard to escape the impression that there is much more actual
( similarity between high and low scorers in the political and economic section 'of the interviews than in more remote and complicated regions. To be sure, ? -tllere are some topics which are as clearly discriminatory as some of the more
? extreme anti-Semitic ideas discussed in the preceding chapter. One hardly
needs any research in order to establish that high scorers tend to be anti-
and low scorers pro-Roosevelt, that high scorers more often want a "strong"
foreign policy and low scorers favor reconciliation, that high scorers indig-
nantly reject communism and low scorers tend to discuss it on a more dis-
cursive plane. However, 'there is a large number of what might be called
more formal constitueirt~of political ideology which seem to permeate the
1
whole pattern while, by their own momentum, making for reactionary and
-
potentially fascist persuasions. Here belong, as will be discussed in detail, general ignorance and confusion in political matters, the habits of "ticket thinking" and "personalization," resentment of unions, of government inter- ference in business, of income limitations, and a number of other trends.
The existence of such an over-all pattern in politics need not be surprising, when the whole context of our study is considered. As a matter of fact, the problem itself is derived from our quantitative findings. After we once ad- ministered the PEC scale, no close relation between politics and anti-Semi- tism could be expected. Chapter V offered the evidence that the correlation of PEC with either anti-Semitism or ethnocentrism was never very high. There were some subjects high on PEC but low on E, others high on E but middle or low on PEC. This means that in this area particularly we cannot speak in categorical terms of high vs. low scorers. W e shall see if this is borne out by a consideration of the interviews: both what the weakening of our ? basic distinction means qualitatively and whether and how we still can dif- ferentiate successfully in this area.
If a trend that differentiates statistically between high and low scorers on E-the "highs" being higher on it-appears very commonly in the interviews of all subjects, then we must conclude that it is a trend in culture itself. In this chapter we shall be particularly concerned with these outstanding fea- tures. The evidence that they are potentially fascistic is the fact that they "go" statistically, psychologically, and in every other respect with high scale scores; if they also occur with considerable frequency in interviews of low scorers it must be because we are living in potentially fascist times.
If a subject is low on all scales, but still shows trends which look potentially fascist, then one might say that the scales and other techniques do not cover
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 657
everything, that the potential fascism of the trend is hypothetical as far as the statistical evidence goes, and that one might perform an empirical study to see if it really does go with what we know of the subject. We expect our discussion at least to shed some light on this methodological prob- lem.
As far as the differentiation between high and low scorers goes, it is obvi- ous that an over-all pattern would necessitate more differentiated character- izations than those previously employed. This can be hinted at only occa- sionally throughout this chapter. Sometimes high and low scorers are similar in what they say in politico-economic terms, but different in some more subtle way; just as sometimes they are superficially different but similar with respect to underlying trends.
Political and economic facts are subject to rapid change. This holds par-
ticularly true for the last few years. When our material was gathered, mainly
throughout 1945, Russia was an ally; today, the tension between this country
and the Soviet Union overshadows all other issues. Such changes make a
valid interpretation of political ideology difficult and precarious. Thus, it
might well be that anti-Russian sentiments, which were in 1945 part and
parcel of a general pattern of reactionism, largely conditioned subjectively,
would be of a much more "realistic" nature today, or at least they would fall
to a greater extent within the "over-all pattern," being less differentiating
per se between high and low scorers. Moreover, in all probability the typical
high scorer has become even more articulate with regard to Russia. It is hard
to imagine that Mack would still stick to his statement that "Joe" Stalin was
all right. Our interpretation, of course, had to stick to the situation of 1945
in order to give an adequate picture of the relationship between ideology and .
,. . . . . J
personality factors. However, it should be emphasized that the PEC scale as well as its follow-up in the interviews depends to a much higher degree on external events than do the other scales. This is why we never expected that the correlations of PEC with E and F would be very high, and it is quite possible that under the new political circumstances the direction of some of the more superficial relationships might have changed. Ideology is so sensi- tive to political dynamics that even some interpretations formulated com- paratively lately, when the bulk of the chapter had been written, should be qualified at publication time. Yet we may claim that the general trend of events has been entirely in accord with the general formulations reached in the discussion to follow.
With regard to the organization of the chapter we shall deal first with the more formal constituents of political and economic ideology and later with a number of specific political issues. The problem of cultural over-all pattern vs. psychological differentiation occurs in both sections, though the presuppositions of the over-all pattern belong mainly to the first one.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
B. FORMAL CONSTITUENTS OF POLITICAL THINKING
1. IGNORANCE AND CONFUSIONt
The evaluation of the political statements contained in our interview material has to be considered in relation to the widespread ignorance and confusion of our subjects in political matters, a phenomenon which might well surpass what even a skeptical observer should have anticipated. If people do not know what they are talking about, the concept of "opinion," which is basic to any approach to ideology, loses much of its meaning. This does not imply that the material becomes insignificant but rather that it cannot be interpreted in factual categories but must be related to the sociopsychological structure of the subject being investigated. In other words, the material itself calls for that personality analysis which marks the general strategy of our research.
"If the Germans were changed in one generation by the Nazis, then the Japanese can be changed in a democratic way in one or two generations. Anybody can be- come anything under the proper conditions. "
Consequently, when discussing anti-Semitism, he chooses as an explanation a historical element, the maliciously superimposed Jewish names. The arbi- trariness of the selection of this specific factor can probably be accounted for by the interviewee's semanticist hobby:
"Anti-Semitism is a little different. Semites are not so easily identified. I guess their name is about the main thing. For instance, from your name I guess you're Jewish though I wouldn't know to look at you. Are you? " (Yes. ) (Subject is quite open about these things. The only sign of inhibition was that it was hard for him to use the word "Jew" as he preferred the word "Semite" at first, but later he used the word "Jew" also. )
This subject's readiness to discuss the interviewer's Jewishness is significant. To him, the word Jew is not a magic word, nor is being Jewish a disgrace: thus he does not feel inhibited about mentioning it in relation to the person with whom he is talking. It is hard to imagine that a high scorer would casu- ally discuss the origins of an interviewer except on occasions when he feels on the defensive and wants to hurt the other fellow: "You are a Jew yourself, aren't you? "
The rationality of the unprejudiced subjects expresses itself, above all, in their rejection of anti-minority stereotypes. Frequently, this rejection is of a conscious, articulate nature: they take the concept of individuality seriously. We refer again to Mgzo. His utterance shows a definite sense of proportion even in his rejection of stereotypy: he does not deny the existence of physical racial characteristics, but regards them as nonessential:
"Well, I wouldn't be tricked into making a statement about any people as a
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
group. The Japanese I've known I've liked very well. I know there are some Japa- nese who aren't so nice. . . . W e had a Japanese gir1stand up with us at the altar and ' a Chinese girl too . . . in 1942 when there was some pretty tense feeling. (Do you feel that any racial group has certain distinguishing characteristics? ) No, not at all. Of course you have biological characteristics, the height of the bridge of the nose or pigmentation. "
A similar line is followed in the Los Angeles interview 5030, of a 33-year-old Stanford graduate who served for four years in the navy, finally becoming a Lieutenant Commander. His scores on all scales are low. He is judged by the interviewer to be an extremely astute, successful individual:
"The Negroes, Jews, and all minority groups are having a very difficult time. I think many people dislike them because of their physical characteristics. They are really in a very bad spot. Such things as the FEPC help a lot and I favor both state and national laws concerning this issue. So many people are not willing to admit that many Negroes are intelligent, superior, and capable individuals. Their environ- ment has held them back as a race. I have had both good and bad experiences with members of these groups but have never considered the people as belonging to a certain race or religion. I always take them for what they are worth as individuals. Yesterday I had a nice experience. There is a girl in one of my classes who is part Negro. She is a very superior and capable individual and I am sure the most intelli- gent member of the class. I have often thought I would like to visit with her but a suitable opportunity has never presented itself. Yesterday I, after much hesitation and fumbling, invited her to have a cup of coffee with me. Her acceptance was much more gracious than my invitation and we had a nice visit. I think the reason for my hesitation was simply a fear of what other people might think. I once had a Jewish roommate and he was the best roommate I have ever had. "
An extreme example of fully conscious anti-stereotypy is 5046, an execu- tive secretary in the movie industry, in her late thirties, actively engaged in the labor movement. Her questionnaire scores are low for all scales. If some of her formulations suggest a "ticket low,"2 it should be kept in mind that her rejection of stereotypy even prevents her from building up automatically a pro-Jewish stereotype. She is no "Jew lover," but seems truly to appraise people as individuals. As a matter of fact, she has just severed a relationship with a Jewish man:
When the interviewer began questioning subject on the Jewish problem, it be- came apparent immediately that she "knew all the answers. " She stated: "Yes, there is a problem . . . but I don't think we should call it a Jewish problem; it really is a Christian problem . . . question of educating the Gentiles who practice anti- Semitism. " When given the check list, she laughed and said: "Of course, one can't generalize . . . these are the stereotypes used by the anti-Semites to blame the Jews for certain faults . . . I don't think one should label any group like this . . . it is dangerous, especially in regard to the Jews, because one has to evaluate the indi- vidual on his or her own merits. " None of the other questions brought out even a trace of anti-Semitism, and throughout, her answers indicated a consistent, almost
2 See the "rigid low scorer" in Chapter XIX.
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
militant stand against anti-Semitism. She feels that anti-Semitism is one of the most dangerous trends in this country and feels that the only solution must be sought through widespread education along liberal lines and through extensive intermar- riage. She feels rather optimistic about the process of assimilation, although she is quite alarmed about the increase of anti-Semitism during recent years. Hitler's race theory and persecution of the Jews should be combatted on every front, in what- ever form it may appear. She stated: "I have also known some Jewish people whom I decidedly did not like, and some of them were quite aggressive, but I would never generalize that therefore 'all Jews' were aggressive . . . if only we could make people see that some people are aggressive for certain reasons, usually because of insecurity, and Jews are not aggressive because they are Jews. "
As pointed out in great detail in the chapters on the personality aspects of the interview material, the low scorers' rationality, their rejection of projec- tive imagery and automatized judgment, does not involve as a rule emotional coldness and detachment. Although they are more rational than the "highs" in so far as their judgment seems to be less determined by repressed uncon- scious factors, they are simultaneously less blocked in positive cathexes and in the expression of them. This refers not only to their general psychological make-up but also to their specific minority attitudes. The prejudiced person discusses the Jews as an "object" while he actually hates; the unprejudiced person displays sympathy even when he pretends simply to judge objec- tively. The link between this sympathy and rationality is the idea of justice, which has come to work, in certain people, spontaneously, almost as if it were instinctual. To the low scorer, racial discrimination violates the basic principle of the equality of all men. In the name of human rights he tends to identify himself with those who are discriminated against and who thus appeal to his own spontaneous feeling of solidarity with the oppressed.
Here are a few examples of this specific configuration. M 113, a "religious low scorer" whose F scale shows higher trends and whose PEC scale was still higher:
(Minority problem? ) "In a speech the other day in Public Speaking I said that democracy is mainly respect for minority groups. " (Vague, little verbalized ideas. ) "They have gotten a dirty deal, as most minorities do. "
Similarly, in M320, a consistently low-scoring student of landscape archi- tecture, protest against unfairness works as a "rationalization" for emotional identification which otherwise might not be allowed to come into the open:
"I'm very much pro-Negro, myself. I think I'm in favor of almost any minority that's discriminated against unfairly. . . . (What about the Jewish problem? ) I don't see why it should be a problem at all. I think that in Europe the Jews should be allowed to live and have their businesses, etc. , the same as anyone else. "
Or the young woman F129, also low on all scales, a somewhat high-strung person who, according to the interviewer, is moved by any disturbing sub- ject-including race prejudice-to tears and flushes:
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
(And how do you feel about Jews? ) "vVhy, I don't feel any way about them except upset at the way they are treated. There are good and bad in all races but I am inclined to be even more tolerant about the shortcomings of people who are always persecuted and criticized. (Could you have married a Jew? ) Why of course, if I had fallen in love with one. (Why do you think Jews are persecuted? ) I don't know except some people have to hate. "
There are indications that the low scorers' affect-laden sense of justice is not a mere surface ideology, or a means of narcissistic gratification in one's own humanitarianism, but that it has a real basis within the personality and is only presented afterwards, as it were, in theoretical terms. The sympathy for the underdog leads towards action, towards attempts to correct in concrete, indi- vidual situations what is felt to be general unfairness. A pertinent case was 5030 (see p. 646). We give one further illustration: F126, who is low on E and PEC and only slightly higher on F. She is a good-looking young woman, "very articulate and whimsical, with much charm and humor. " She studies journalism and says that her real desire is to do "creative writing":
"I remember when I was in junior high, there was only one Jewish boy in our class. We were always having parties and affairs and he was left out. At first I didn't even understand why. He was a very nice boy, smart, and good-looking. But they left him out because he was a Jew. vVell, I made it my business to be his special friend, not only invited him to my parties, but paid particular attention to him. That was one time it was really good to be one of the leading kids. The others began to treat him the same way, and he was just one of the crowd from then on. I never have been able to stand to see anyone be mean to anyone else. The same at the shipyards. I always made it a point to get acquainted with Negroes and Jews. They talked frankly with me, too, and I certainly found out what some of their problems are. Whenever I could, I would bring it into a story, too. Not directly about race prejudice, but nice stories about Negroes for instance. People have so many wrong ideas. I sometimes think it is just hopeless. "
The general attitude of the low scorers towards the Jews profoundly affects their evaluation of so-called Jewish traits. It has been said above (pp. 612 ff. ) that high scorers perceive the Jew altogether differently: their psycho- logical make-up functions as a frame of reference even for their supposedly "immediate," everyday experiences. Something similar applies, in reverse, to the unprejudiced. Yet the diffuseness and inarticulateness of the objective "Jewish traits," complex as they are, is reflected by the low scorers' attitude no less than by the various projections of the high scorers. There is universal sympathy among the unprejudiced subjects, but no unanimity. Sometimes they try to explain Jewish traits; sometimes they simply deny their existence; sometimes they take an emphatically positive, admiring stand towards those traits.
The explanatory method is applied to the most widespread idea of a Jewish trait, that of clannishness, by M2o2, a 35-year-old construction engineer, with the lowest possible score on E, but with certain deviations from the usual
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
picture of the low scorer with regard to PEC and also to F-a person who, according to the interviewer, "is conservative but not fascist. "
In response to a question about how he would characterize the Jews, subject replied that they were a close-knit family with certain inborn characteristics like any other racial group. For instance, the Germans "must always be right," the English-here the interviewer interrupted, pointing out that she wished to know what he thought of the Jews. He replied that the Jews had not been accepted in a certain society and that this had led to their becoming a very close-knit family. The reason for this is that they have certain characteristics. On being asked to be more specific, his reply was they have a tendency to sharp dealing. Of course he doesn't blame them because he would probably do the same if he had the chance and if he were smart enough.
In this case, the wish to "explain," frequently an instrument for rationaliza- tions, seems to mediate between broad-mindedness on the one hand and power- ful anti-minority stereotypes, which are still there below the surface, on the other. As a matter of fact, the pro-Jewish apologies of the subject are fol- lowed by a rather unfriendly story about a supposed conspiracy among three Jewish bidders for a vast quantity of scrap-iron. The guess that the explanatory attitude may sometimes cover up ambivalence seems to be cor- roborated by Mpo, an assistant manager for an advertising agency, who scored low on all scales. Nevertheless, his theorizing presupposes the accept- ance of the stereotype of Jewish money-mindedness:
(Characteristic Jewish traits? ) "Well, I think it is true that Jews, as a group, are more concerned with money. . . . Perhaps because persecuted for so long. . . ? It's some small security in a money economy, that is, a money culture. Some security to be able to defend themselves with money. I also think they are better than average Gentiles at making money because forced to be usurers during the Middle Ages, etc. "
Subjects whose scores are at the lowest extreme often tend simply to deny the existence of any Jewish traits, sometimes with a violence that seems to be due more to the impact of their own conscience than to an objective appraisal of the minority members. Here "neurotic" traits, which are often found in extremely unprejudiced subjects, may easily enter the picture. The vehicle by which they try to argue away Jewish traits is insight into the mechanisms of projectivity and stereotypy, i. e. , into the subjective factors making for anti-Semitism.
Mz12, a "quiet, reserved, well-mannered sophomore of 18 years," whose scale scores are all low, simply subscribes to the "envy" theory:
(Jews? ) "Not an educational problem in this case. People just prejudiced. Want to keep them out of good positions, etc. People make up wild stories, like that the Jews have too much money, control the country, etc. ; it's just to keep them back. (Your contacts? ) No Negroes in my school. Jews were like anyone else. I'd never know they were Jewish if they hadn't told me," ?
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
5041 (whose scale scores are all low), a 59-year-old housewife who had studied to be a professional pianist, combines the denial of Jewish traits with reference to bygone ages and with the rejection of resentful generalizations:
"I think there is a Jewish problem-but I don't think that they are different . . . not that there is anything inherent in them that they should be set apart or treated differently. . . . There are historical reasons for their persecution . . . it is not their fault. Well, you can't apply any of these traits to the Jews as a group. Jews are not a race. . . . These terms might apply to some individuals, to Christians as well as Jews . . .
you have some aggressive people, but they are not aggressive because they are Jewish . . . it's usually something that the other person does not like . . . say they appear to be more intellectual and some succeed, outdoing others, this causes resentment, and then they are called aggressive. . . . "
An extreme of denial is achieved by the "easy-going" low scorer, M z2o6a, of the Maritime School Group, who "is a highly introspective person and shows much inhibition against rejecting another person or group, even on the basis of principles founded in reality. " His scores on all the scales are low:
(Most characteristic traits of Negroes? ) "Well, I don't think there is such a thing. They have the same traits the white men have. . . . I don't believe any nationality has any characteristics. . . . "
Sometimes the intense emotions behind the denial of Jewish traits find a somewhat irrational expression. F z2 5 (low on E and F, but high on PEC) is a student who would like to become a drama teacher and who finds "the movies very stereotyped. " Her indignation was stirred up by our own study.
"I was mad at some questions in your questionnaire, especially about the Jewish atmosphere. The Irish people and other national groups give an atmosphere to the place in which they live, but only the Jewish atmosphere is stamped as something bad. I don't find that the ways of living of the Jews are different at all. "
If the prejudiced subjects, for reasons of general conformity and in order to obtain "social confirmation," frequently stress that practically everybody is anti-Semitic, some low scorers go so far as not only to deny the existence of Jewish traits, but even of anti-Semitism. A case in point is the somewhat muddle-headed Mzz5, characterized as a typical conventional and conserva- tive fraternity man who, however, is within the low quartile on the F scale though in the middle quartile on E and in the high quartile on PEC:
(What about the Jewish problem? ) "There's not much persecution now in the United States. There shouldn't be any. The only reason for persecuting the Jew is that he is smarter than the next guy, as far as I can see. "
As to the appreciation of the specific qualities of Jews and of other minori- ties, we content ourselves with two examples which may throw light on significant areas. F128, a 17-year-old girl, is low on F and PEC but slightly
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 6p
higher on E. She is studying social work and is interested in child welfare, but not "in any kind of a career":
"I guess I have had a better education than many people. We have entertained Negroes in our home as long as I can remember. I have known all sorts of people- lots of them very eccentric people-in music and art groups. The first good friends I ever had were Jewish boys and girls. I don't know why some people hate Negroes and Jews. With Jewish people perhaps they are a little afraid, because lots of Jews are smarter than other people. "
The interesting element of this statement is contained in the word "eccen- tric. " It refers to what is "different," to what is branded as slightly abnormal by standards of conformity, but which expresses individualization, the? de- velopment of human traits which have not been preformed, as it were, by the social machinery of contemporary civilization. To this subject, the very "alienness" of minorities with respect to the rigid patterns of the highly organized mass society of today, represents the human, which she otherwise might feel to be lacking among the "right people. " The Jewish "failure" to become completely absorbed by the American cultural climate presents itself to this subject as a merit, as a triumph of autonomy and resistance ? against the leveling impact ofthe "melting pot. "
soso, a radio news commentator with progressive political affiliations, who is low on all three scales, denies the existence of Jewish traits but emphasizes a point rarely acknowledged: the patience of the minorities in the face of persecution. His praise of this attitude actually contains a critical element which may, by the implication of cowardice, be indicative of some hidden hostility. He blames the minorities for political reasons because they do not take a more energetic stand against American reaction:
He tries at all times to show that there are no so-called "Jewish traits," and that people such as described by Budd Schulberg in "What Makes Sammy Run" can and do occur quite as frequently among Gentiles. Then he usually points to a man like Rankin or Bilbo as an example of an obnoxious "Gentile. " "I admire both the Negro and the Jewish people for their great patience in swallowing discrimination. . . . if I were in their shoes, I would start a really militant fight against the oppressors. " He still feels that too many Jews and Negroes are too apathetic and rather let the other fellow do the fighting. . ? . he feels that had the Jews been more alert, Hitler might have been stopped, or at least prevented from perpetrating the extreme atrocities. Again and again he stated that all forms of discrimination can and must be wiped out by direct political action.
One last characteristic of the unprejudiced attitude toward minority ques- tions should be mentioned: the absence of fatalism. Not only do unprejudiced subjects, in the realm of their conscious convictions, appear to be set against ideas such as those of the inevitability of human badness or the perennial nature of any character traits, but on a deeper level, as suggested in Chapters XIV and XV,? they appear to be relatively free of destruc-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tive urges and punitive fantasies. They look at things in a historical and sociological way rather than hypostatizing the existent as something ulti- mately given. This point of view expresses itself also in their concept of the future relationships between majority and minority. soo8, low on E, in the middle quartile on F, and high on PEC, is a middle-aged woman who worked as a ghost writer, then as a literary agent, and is now employed as secretary to a radio show. In keeping with the low scorers' rejection of stereotypy, she sees the solution of the problem of anti-Semitism, however naively, in the establishment of personal contacts.
She holds nothing but good wishes for the intelligent immigrants and refugees who have come here recently, but feels that many of them have been undesirable. Concerning Negroes she reports that as a Republican she believes their position should be very much bettered, but says this is a difficult problem. Concerning Jews she says, "Before I went to work, I probably had a slight anti-Jewish feeling," but in several positions she has worked with and for Jews, and found them very charm- ing, intelligent, and interesting people. She thinks the racial problem most in need of solution is that of anti-Semitism, and feels that if more "anti-Semites would mingle ,with Jews the way I have" it could be avoided. She believes in the FEPC and thinks that socioeconomic discrimination should be outlawed. When it was pointed out that this is a more New Deal type of political notion, she simply said, "Well, it can't all be bad. "
This attitude, which stresses human spontaneity and freedom of action rather than rigid, authoritarian laws of nature, does not, however, lead toward "official optimism. " The unprejudiced subjects' sensitivity to the suffering of human beings, their compassion, makes them keenly aware of the dangers of racial persecution. It is the high scorer who would say, "It can't happen here," thus apparently detaching himself from the "objective" course of history with which he actually identifies himself; the low scorer knows that it could happen, but wants to do something about it.
sos8, low on all three scales, is a 29-year-old veteran of upper middle-class background whose main identification lies with "liberals" and "intellectuals. "
He is very concerned about the problem of minority groups in this country. "I do a lot of talking about it-hoping to reduce prejudice and to encourage tolerance. In fact, I feel so concerned about this thing I would almost be willing to set myself up in Pershing Square. I tried to do a little crusading in the Navy but without much success. " Subject is very pessimistic about the possibility of a solution to the "mi- nority problem" which seems to stem largely from his failure to modify the opinions of the people with whom he has argued. He feels that dislike of the Jews is increas- ing because he has heard more talk against them lately. "Of course that might be because I am exposed to it more lately, both while I was in the Navy and in my present job. " He does not feel that the Jews have too much influence in this country, nor does he believe that the Jews are a political force in America. He is certain that they did their part in the war effort. When asked about "basically Jewish traits," he was not able to respond since to him this term means practically nothing. "Jews are all so different from each other that we cannot speak of there being something 'basically Jewish' about them. "
? PREJUDICE IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL
]. CONCLUSION
It has often been said that anti-Semitism works as the spearhead of anti- democratic forces. The phrase sounds a bit hackneyed and apologetic: the minority most immediately threatened seems to make an all-too-eager attempt to enlist the support of the majority by claiming that it is the latter's interest and not their own which really finds itself in jeopardy today. Looking back, however, at the material surveyed in this, and other, chapters, it has to be recognized that a link between anti-Semitism and antidemocratic feeling exists. True, those who wish to exterminate the Jews do not, as is sometimes claimed, wish to exterminate afterwards the Irish or the Protestants. But the limitation of human rights which is consummated in their idea of a special treatment of the Jews, not only logically implies the ultimate abolition of the democratic form of government and, hence, of the legal protection of the individual, but it is frequently associated quite consciously, by high-scoring interviewees, with overt antidemocratic ideas. W e conclude this chapter with two examples of what appear to be the inescapable antidemocratic conse- quences of anti-Semitism. Mzo6, a man high on theE, F, and PEC scales, still pretends to be democratic; but it is not difficult to infer what is in the back of his mind:
"Hitler's plan-well, Hitler carried things just a little too far. There was some justification-some are bad, but not all. But Hitler went on the idea that a rotten apple in the barrel will spoil all the rest of them. " He doesn't approve of ruthless persecution. "If Hitler had handled the Jews as a minority group, had segregated them and set certain standards for them to live by, there would be less trouble for Hitler now. (Same problem in this country now? ) Same problem, but it's handled much better because we're a democratic country. "
While the suggestion that a minority be segregated is incompatible with the basic concepts of the same "democratic country" of which the subject pro- fesses to be proud, the metaphor of the rotten apple in the barrel conjures up the imagery of "evil germs" which is associated with appalling regularity with the dream of an effective germicide.
Perversion of a so-called democrat is manifested in 50zg, another man whose scale scores are all high. He is a 2o-year-old laborer, characterized above all, by his blind, authoritarian acceptance of his humble position in life. At the same time, he "dislikes timid people" and has "great admiration for real leaders":
Respondent believes that the "laws of democracy should favor white, Gentile people," yet he "would not openly persecute Jews in the way the Hitler program treated them. "
The reservation of the second sentence is disavowed by the momentum of the convictions expressed in the first one.
? CHAPTER XVII
POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN THE INTERVIEW MATERIAL T. W. Adorno
A. INTRODUCTION
The questionnaire findings on political and economic ideology have been analyzed in Chapter V. It is now our task to study the interview material referring to the same topics. The purpose is, first of all, to concretize our insight into these ideologies. If we investigated, in Chapter V, into the re- sponses of our subjects to a number of set, standardized political and eco- nomic ideas and slogans with which they are daily confronted, we shall now try to form a picture of "what they really think"-with the qualification that we shall also have to find out whether we are entitled to expect autonomous and spontaneous opinions from the majority of them. It is obvious that the answer to such problems, unless they should be made the very center of research, can be given only in a less rigorous way than was the case with the quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses, and that the results are of a more tentative nature. Their convincing power lies more in the con- sistency of specific interpretations with facts previously established than in any indisputable "proof" that one or the other of the ideological mechanisms under review prevail within a majority of subjects or within certain groups.
Again, our interpretations of ideology will go below the realm of sur- face opinion, and will be related to the psychological results of our study. It is not our aim merely to add some padding to our figures. As stated in? the Introductory Remarks to this part, we would rather gain insight into the links between ideological opinions and psychological determinants. We do not pretend that psychology is the cause and ideology the effect. But we try to interrelate both as intimately as possible, guided by the assumption that ideological irrationalities just as other irrationalities of overt human behavior
are concomitant with unconscious psychological conflicts. We combed through the interview material with particular attention to such irrationali-
654
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 655
ties and to statements revealing something about the dynamics of personality. The establishment of plausible configurations involving both dynamic moti- vation and ideological rationalization seems to us the foremost means of achieving that consistency on which the evidence of the discussions to follow largely depends. The data discussed so far permit at least the assumption that personality could be regarded as one determinant of ideology.
Yet it is just the area with which we are now concerned that most strongly forbids any simple reduction to terms of personality. Our construct of the~! "potentially fascist character" was largely based on the division between high and low scorers. Whereas this division retains its value for numerous topics of political and economic ideology and can be substantiated, on a deeper level, probably for all ideological issues, there appears to be at work another determinant which, in numerous issues, blurs the distinction between high and low scorers and refuses to be stated unequivocally in terms of personality. This determinant may be called our general cultural climate, and particularly the ideological influence upon the people of most media for moulding public opinion. If our cultural climate has been standardized under the impact o f social control and technological concentration to an extent never known before, we may expect that the thinking habits of individuals reflect this standardization as well as the dynamics of their own personalities. These personalities may, indeed, be the product of this very same standardization to a much higher degree than a naive observer is led to believe. In other words, we have to expect a kind of ideological "over-all pattern" in our inter- viewees which, though by no means indifferent to the dichotomy of high and low scorers, transcends its boundaries. Our data afford ample evidence that such an ideological over-all pattern exists in fact.
It is a major question for this chapter whether this over-all ideological pattern, perhaps even more than the specific susceptibility of our high scorers to fascist propaganda, does not entail the danger of a large-scale following of antidemocratic movements if they should get under way with powerful support.
The importance of this diagnosis, if it should be corroborated sufficientiy by our data, is self-evident, its most immediate implication being that the fight against such a general potential cannot be carried through only educa- tionally on a purely psychological level, but that it requires at the same time decisive changes of that cultural climate which makes for the over-all pat- tern. Methodologically, the importance of this aspect of our study lies in the fact that it relativizes, somewhat, the distinction between high vs. low scorers; this distinction, if taken as absolute, may easily lead to a "psychologizing" bias that would neglect the objective, supra-individual social forces operating in our society.
The introduction of the concept of an over-all pattern just in this ideolog-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ical area may appear paradoxical at first glance. Since most political and economic issues are overt and relatively simple with reference to the blunt division between progressivism and reactionism, one should expect the dif- ference to be particularly marked here. This, however, is not borne out by the facts. It is hard to escape the impression that there is much more actual
( similarity between high and low scorers in the political and economic section 'of the interviews than in more remote and complicated regions. To be sure, ? -tllere are some topics which are as clearly discriminatory as some of the more
? extreme anti-Semitic ideas discussed in the preceding chapter. One hardly
needs any research in order to establish that high scorers tend to be anti-
and low scorers pro-Roosevelt, that high scorers more often want a "strong"
foreign policy and low scorers favor reconciliation, that high scorers indig-
nantly reject communism and low scorers tend to discuss it on a more dis-
cursive plane. However, 'there is a large number of what might be called
more formal constitueirt~of political ideology which seem to permeate the
1
whole pattern while, by their own momentum, making for reactionary and
-
potentially fascist persuasions. Here belong, as will be discussed in detail, general ignorance and confusion in political matters, the habits of "ticket thinking" and "personalization," resentment of unions, of government inter- ference in business, of income limitations, and a number of other trends.
The existence of such an over-all pattern in politics need not be surprising, when the whole context of our study is considered. As a matter of fact, the problem itself is derived from our quantitative findings. After we once ad- ministered the PEC scale, no close relation between politics and anti-Semi- tism could be expected. Chapter V offered the evidence that the correlation of PEC with either anti-Semitism or ethnocentrism was never very high. There were some subjects high on PEC but low on E, others high on E but middle or low on PEC. This means that in this area particularly we cannot speak in categorical terms of high vs. low scorers. W e shall see if this is borne out by a consideration of the interviews: both what the weakening of our ? basic distinction means qualitatively and whether and how we still can dif- ferentiate successfully in this area.
If a trend that differentiates statistically between high and low scorers on E-the "highs" being higher on it-appears very commonly in the interviews of all subjects, then we must conclude that it is a trend in culture itself. In this chapter we shall be particularly concerned with these outstanding fea- tures. The evidence that they are potentially fascistic is the fact that they "go" statistically, psychologically, and in every other respect with high scale scores; if they also occur with considerable frequency in interviews of low scorers it must be because we are living in potentially fascist times.
If a subject is low on all scales, but still shows trends which look potentially fascist, then one might say that the scales and other techniques do not cover
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 657
everything, that the potential fascism of the trend is hypothetical as far as the statistical evidence goes, and that one might perform an empirical study to see if it really does go with what we know of the subject. We expect our discussion at least to shed some light on this methodological prob- lem.
As far as the differentiation between high and low scorers goes, it is obvi- ous that an over-all pattern would necessitate more differentiated character- izations than those previously employed. This can be hinted at only occa- sionally throughout this chapter. Sometimes high and low scorers are similar in what they say in politico-economic terms, but different in some more subtle way; just as sometimes they are superficially different but similar with respect to underlying trends.
Political and economic facts are subject to rapid change. This holds par-
ticularly true for the last few years. When our material was gathered, mainly
throughout 1945, Russia was an ally; today, the tension between this country
and the Soviet Union overshadows all other issues. Such changes make a
valid interpretation of political ideology difficult and precarious. Thus, it
might well be that anti-Russian sentiments, which were in 1945 part and
parcel of a general pattern of reactionism, largely conditioned subjectively,
would be of a much more "realistic" nature today, or at least they would fall
to a greater extent within the "over-all pattern," being less differentiating
per se between high and low scorers. Moreover, in all probability the typical
high scorer has become even more articulate with regard to Russia. It is hard
to imagine that Mack would still stick to his statement that "Joe" Stalin was
all right. Our interpretation, of course, had to stick to the situation of 1945
in order to give an adequate picture of the relationship between ideology and .
,. . . . . J
personality factors. However, it should be emphasized that the PEC scale as well as its follow-up in the interviews depends to a much higher degree on external events than do the other scales. This is why we never expected that the correlations of PEC with E and F would be very high, and it is quite possible that under the new political circumstances the direction of some of the more superficial relationships might have changed. Ideology is so sensi- tive to political dynamics that even some interpretations formulated com- paratively lately, when the bulk of the chapter had been written, should be qualified at publication time. Yet we may claim that the general trend of events has been entirely in accord with the general formulations reached in the discussion to follow.
With regard to the organization of the chapter we shall deal first with the more formal constituents of political and economic ideology and later with a number of specific political issues. The problem of cultural over-all pattern vs. psychological differentiation occurs in both sections, though the presuppositions of the over-all pattern belong mainly to the first one.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
B. FORMAL CONSTITUENTS OF POLITICAL THINKING
1. IGNORANCE AND CONFUSIONt
The evaluation of the political statements contained in our interview material has to be considered in relation to the widespread ignorance and confusion of our subjects in political matters, a phenomenon which might well surpass what even a skeptical observer should have anticipated. If people do not know what they are talking about, the concept of "opinion," which is basic to any approach to ideology, loses much of its meaning. This does not imply that the material becomes insignificant but rather that it cannot be interpreted in factual categories but must be related to the sociopsychological structure of the subject being investigated. In other words, the material itself calls for that personality analysis which marks the general strategy of our research.
